Let's talk about the nose in our face.

I am a Christian theist, and I am inviting atheists to talk with me about the nose in our face.

I read this text in your website:

[quote] Think Atheist is your safe place to come out and learn how to have a dialog with friends, family, and strangers about your belief that the world was not created but is in its current state because of complicated and beautifully unguided processes. [/quote]

Replies to This Discussion

By unguided I mean... you came here to assert your beliefs, and Christianity asserts a single supernatural creator, therefor if that's the position you take, the burden of proof of said creator is on you. If you can't establish that first, you can't assert it as the cause of the nose.

If you don't know what unguided is intended to mean in the context you ask about, then the intelligence that you purport to have that atheists somehow don't is vastly overstated.

I have not read all your messages because of the ones I have read they are all frivolous. Don't be frivolous.

Start with telling readers here what is your meaning of the word, unguided.

Here, I will reproduce my introductory post for the thread:

-----------------

I am a Christian theist, and I am inviting atheists to talk with me about the nose in our face.

I read this text in your website:

[quote] Think Atheist is your safe place to come out and learn how to have a dialog with friends, family, and strangers about your belief that the world was not created but is in its current state because of complicated and beautifully unguided processes. [/quote]

You are saying that the nose came about by unguided processes?

Pachomius

---------------------

That post is found at the start of page one of this thread.

Tell you what, if you just start your reply with this line:

"By unguided I mean..."

Then I will read your message, but as soon as I see you are lapsing into frivolities, I'll stop.

Pachomius

[/list]

Some of you are saying that the nose in our face is the result of unguided process because it is the product of evolution.

Since evolution is supposed to comprise two phases, first random mutation and second natural selection, and it takes millions of years to result in a new species, and it is supposed, I mean evolution, is supposed to be scientific, I have two questions for you:

1. How can any event which is random be ever a preliminary event to another event which is not random, when the second event is already vitiated by the first one which is random, for being connected to the first one which is random? The second and succeeding events are in a way contaminated by the first event which is random.

2. How can evolution be scientific when it is not falsifiable? And it is not falsifiable first because of random mutation and second it takes millions of years to lead to a new species. If you ascribe to millions of years for an explanation of anything that is now stable, then you can explain everything no matter how absurd, and no one can do an experiment on it for it takes millions of years which is an indefinite duration of years.

This isn't accurate. nylonase feeds on nylon which is a petroleum product. As a consequence, it could have only speciated in the last 100 years.

Question 1

I'll refer you back to nylonase. The bacteria existed in the pools of nylon. With a simple mutation that allowed it to use the nylon for a food source, the succeeding bacteria were more successful at surviving to reproduction due to being surrounded by food. They geographically pushed out the other bacteria.

Another example since you might say it's still bacteria and not accept the valid speciation example. Oceanic Islands don't have natural predators. How would a carnivore eat prior to animals showing up in Hawaii? So birds get there. They no longer have predators and food is abundant. They lose the ability to fly because it wastes energy and provides them with light bones which is detrimental. Now there are still birds that fly, it's just a matter of some using food sources safely on ground and others using food sources higher up. The two no longer mate and therefore they speciate.

Question 2

Evolution can be scientific because it can be falsified. DNA is a road map to our past. If you found modern ostrich DNA in me, it would falsify Evolution and possibly point to a creator whom spilled the DNA when he was whipping me up in a bowl. These mutations can be seen in multiple ways. The Telomeric Fusion of Chromosome #2 in humans that can be traced back and cross referenced to primate DNA is evidence of our relationship. If you didn't find this, then we couldn't explain the mutation from 48 to 46 chromosomes and Evolution would have a serious problem to work out. So Evolution and mutations are falsifiable through the records of DNA.

1. Random in the sense of natural selection does not literally mean random (as in the type of random that has been proven to exist in quantum mechanics). It means something that is not influenced by phenomena outside of the organism itself. Genetic mutations may very well be traceable to molecular chains of events, but they're not directly influenced by how much food is available to the organism, nor whether climate change is underway.

2. It is perfectly falsifiable, and perfectly reproducible. Google Endler's experiments in fish predators and prey, Lensky's bacterial evolution experiment (there are others that I'd have to google to remember the names of the people involved).

It has been proven. It can be falsified. Accept it and move on. If you don't, you're guilty of self-imposed (inexcusable) doxastic bewilderment.

Develop the skill of thinking so as to write concisely, precisely, simply, and of course clearly.

And I don't give time to videos and graphics ad also audios, let us communicate with written words.

Before you write try to choose a very sharp focus and determine the thrust, then rehearse your words before finally putting them to paper.

And also as soon as I see that a message is into frivolity, I skip to the next and next and next until I come to one which is not into frivolities.

---------------------

[quote] Think Atheist is your safe place to come out and learn how to have a dialog with friends, family, and strangers about your belief that the world was not created but is in its current state because of complicated and beautifully unguided processes. [/quote]

You are saying that the nose came about by unguided processes?

-------------------

I have asked you to give me your definition of the word unguided, and if you have ever come to the factual encounter with a stable thing that came about beautifully but unguided-ly.

Okay, no wasting time here, give me each of you, not into frivolities, very long posts, etc., an example of a stable thing that is still around which came about beautifully unguided.

Your nose, I suggest, the most convenient and readily available for you to ascertain that it is present in your face.

My position is that the nose did not come about unguided.

Because you cannot produce a nose unguided by yourself, and no one else whoever and whatever he is can either.

You say that evolution produced it unguided.

Then you tell me what is it to be an unguided process that can bring about a nose in your face that is still staying in your face.

But which you cannot produce one in the shop or in the most well equipped laboratory.

Anyway, suppose you lost your nose and the plastic surgeon has to fashion one for you, by reconstructive surgery, tell me briefly after doing some needed reading on how the surgeon goes about his job for you to again have a nose in your face.

"Take this example, you are in the jungle and you have a guide, he is directing your travel and he is your protector, your travel in the jungle is not an unguided process."

So the guide would stop me from walking into a lion's den. I can even prove that the guide did so. If I walk into a lion's den, no god will stop me and if I choose to turn around, I can't prove that any god turned me around.

"The conception of a baby and its gestation in the womb of its mother is certainly not unguided, there is a program and this program is the guided process."

Well I'm glad we never have to worry about birth defects then, since there's a program, which should run the same way every time because it's a program, and there's a guider/protector which should prevent anything from going wrong.

"1. How can any event which is random be ever a preliminary event to another event which is not random, when the second event is already vitiated by the first one which is random, for being connected to the first one which is random? The second and succeeding events are in a way contaminated by the first event which is random."

Well, this is a very long way to describe opportunity. A nonrandom reaction to a random or randomly presented circumstance. It doesn't violate anything.

"2. How can evolution be scientific when it is not falsifiable?"

I think you're getting falsifiable and verifiable mixed up here.

"anything that is now stable"

Who said it was stable now? You're missing the time frame this works in. You may never notice any change on a macro scale in several of your lifetime.

"and no one can do an experiment on it for it takes millions of years which is an indefinite duration of years"

Well this is flat out wrong as many people have tried to tell you already in this thread. Experiments can be done on a microorganism scale, through computer simulations of natural selection through predator/prey relationships etc.

"If you ascribe to millions of years for an explanation of anything that is now stable, then you can explain everything no matter how absurd"